Tag: Snowden

Finally broke down, dear worst-reader. I splurged the 4,99-€ to rent Snowden last night. Do I regret it? In German the answer is: Jein. It’s a cross between ja (yes) and nein (no). I suppose the more significant question is: would I do it again–as in maybe even buy this movie so that I can play it when I want, how I want, if I want? F’n no! Luckily there’s not much to say about the movie other than… Well, it sucked. In that vein…

During the movie my better half was sick of me turning to her and sticking a finger down my throat. Barf! Especially the various lovey-dovey scenes between Snowden and his pole dancing girlfriend. My guess is Oliver Stone doesn’t really care at this point if his dialogue sucks. He obviously thinks there is a bigger story to be told. Yes, indeed, he thinks that.

I did perk up a few times, though. The scene where the NSA guy lies in front of Congress was pretty good. I even cracked a joke about how the NSA can lie to Congress and get away with it but when Clinton lied about a White House back room blowjob… Then there was the scene where Glenn Greenwald gets pissed at The Guardian and he threatens to go rogue. In fact, during this scene I paused the movie to explain to those watching what really happened–which is a mystery to me why Stone didn’t put this in the movie.

Glenn Greenwald did leave The Guardian and with the help of a mega-rich dotcom funder started the most expensive blog in history: The Intercept. As I’ve posted here, my biggest gripe with the whole Snowden ordeal is the fact that people like Greenwald, to this day, are sitting on all the data. It’s fine if Snowden thinks he was being strategic by giving his data to “responsible” journalists and that they should decide what/when to publish. I just disagree with having to leave it up to profiteering journalists to make that judgement. But I digress.

All in all, this film is horrible. The cinematography sucks. The editing sucks. The screenplay sucks. Etc., etc. Also. I learned nothing new about Snowden–which is the main reason I decided to watch it. Questions are still un-answered and/or un-addressed that I think are important and would have helped people better understand what is really going on with not only Edward Snowden but the entire US government apparatus that reared him. For example:

How did Snowden get on that flight to Moscow from Hong Kong? I mean, who let him on that flight? If THEY wouldn’t let him board a plane to South American, how was he able to get to Russia? If the people that were with him in Hong Kong arranged his flight, why wasn’t that in the film?

Why is it that The Guardian no longer publishes any of the material that it shared wth Greenwald and Ewen MacAskill? Is The Intercept the sole publisher of the Snowden material now? Where is the rest of that material?

Where does Snowden come from? What are his beliefs? Considering the batshittery of #americant politics these days, I think it’s very important to know what these batshitters think, how they were raised, where they come from. For instance. Who is Edward Snowden’s father? I recall a few times in the news, early on, Snowden’s father was featured in reports with words like “libertarianism” and “freedom”. These words are thrown around like badmintion birdies at a drunk family picnic–especially when used by tea-party families. Again: Batshit radical right wing #americant is what got us into the mess we’re in. The scariest thing about Snowden is NOT is data-dump but how he thinks. The way he throws around the word Constitution, as though it’s a veil of sorts, is also a redflag. Indeed. The country is in quagmire of irrational exuberant misplaced patriotism, rightousness and all that jazz. A Mess. Mess. Mess.

The demonising of the CIA and the NSA, as Stone does it, is probably warranted but unnecessary for this story. I’m a big fan of Oliver Stone. I consider him a teacher. The way Stone portrays them here, though, is nothing more than opening a can of worms and then leaving the rest of us to sort it out. What a drag.

Finally, dear worst-reader, I’ve found something out there on the interwebnets that I can relate to–especially regarding the batsh*ttery of the cult of Edward Snowden. As I’ve worst-written here, I’m not a big fan of Snowden. In short, I question whether or not this so-called whistle blower is all he’s cracked up to be. Also, my biggest gripe about Snowden is, regarding his hack of information, he has really only showed us the how and not the what regarding our masters of empire. With that in mind, I’d rather there be an Edward Snowden than there not be one.

Luckily there is a real writer out there that addresses the Snowden cult along the lines of what I’m unable to articulate. Hopefully the link below will work for a while but if it doesn’t–on account of all the greed mongering going on with how “news” should be on the interwebnets (or not)–let me sum it up.

Malcolm Gladwell writes about how Danielle Ellsberg and Hollywood great John Cusack visit Edward Snowden in a fancy Moscow hotel. Gladwell writes all his brilliant intellectualisations (I mean, he’s really good at that) and then concludes that whistler-blower version 2.0 (Snowden) probably should NOT be in the same hotel room as whistle blower 1.0 (Ellsberg). Really? The real kicker that Gladwell writes is at the end of his report:

Above is a screenshot from Gladwell’s article at newyorker.com (see link below for original source).

The fact that Edward Snowden is unaware of the movie Dr. Strangelove says a great deal about what type of person he is. That’s not to say that he’s less of a person. But Stanley Kubrik’s masterpiece that literally picks apart the American mentality of military, huuuuuuuge government (no matter what faux newz tries to sell you) and anti-intellectualism, is a work of art that should be taught in public schools. Indeed. The world would probably be a better place for it.

Sometimes I (worst)wonder about the voice(s) that raised me. Obviously I didn’t listen much to them, yet they somehow were able to embed in the depths of the 90% brain that’s used so little. Have the 20+ yrs in #Eurowasteland brought about those distant voices? Has the trauma of expatriate-ism dis-embedded those voices? Not sure. But every time I spend a thought or three on Edward Snowden, I can’t help but think of the influencing voices that make up who and what we all are.

Who raised you, mother f*cker?

I’m looking forward to seeing Oliver Stone’s new movie about Snowden. Of course, due to the greed pricing of corporatists who rule digital downloads–or theatrical premiers–it’ll most likely take me six or so months before I get to the movie–via iTunes or reduced-price DVD–which I rip to my digital movie library–end thought.

So I guess, in a way, there’s no need in reading or watching clips of the #Snowden movi– even though I like the way Stone disses on his (beloved) country all the time.

With that in mind, along with all the other worst-posts I’ve published about Snowden, I still have one question that I need answered about who and what this guy is (all about)…

What are the voices that raised, reared, made him?

I’ll bet you my last dollar-bill that he was raised (i.e. the voices that spoke too loudly to him directly after his birth) by the bat-shittery-machine that has kept the GOP and the republican party and conservatives running the greed show that is #Americant. I’ll bet anyone that his father is a republican or one of those coward “libertarians” who used to be a republican, his mother is a faux-newz die-hard nutbag, his aunts and uncles are all the nightmares that thinking people the world over dream about during their Thanksgiving dinner sleep-overs and wake up in the middle of the night not from over-eating but from too much bullsh*t that is the dumbed-down of a fail-upward nation.

Of course, criticising Snowden while many in the world are trying to turn him into a hero or, at best, a new & improved Daniel Ellsberg, probably means that I have to have a bit more substance to what I’m saying. But then again, if I had substance then I wouldn’t be publishing on this krappy blog, now would I?

Nomatter.

It’s ok that Snowden did what he did. I don’t even care that there are people out there trying to turn him into a hero. I mean, it’s perfectly fine that he released to the world stolen material that, ultimately, is about the HOW and not the WHAT regarding government over-reach. The thing is, I worked (many years ago) for the same company where Snowden was a contractor. And get this!

There is no doubt in my mind that if/when a sensitive young man, reared by the evil lust voices of #Americant political ideology post Cold War, is forced to confront the personalities that work at a shit-hole that is a company like Booz Allen (or any company that works so close to such an ideological government apparatus), it is only inevitable that s/he at some point breaks down. In this case, Snowden’s break-down manifested in self aggrandisement and atypical #Americant delusions of grandeur.

I’m perturbed as usual, dear worst-reader. Once again my expectations are overwhelmed by the rampant dispersal of new fangled heroes in the form of journalistic endowment and leaks, leaks, leaks. I’m not worst-writing about war-mongering heroes here, of course. No. These heroes are something different. They are the ones who supposedly watch over the gates of information and thereby allow the minions of this world to not be overwhelmed by that information. Which brings me to the question: what would happen if aliens actually came to earth? Do you think the gate-watchers of our earthly atmosphere, i.e. those in the perfect position to detect such a visit, would actually entrust us (minions) with the reality that life exists elsewhere in the universe? I mean. Come on. Basic knowledge of the physical universe states: in order for life to exist there has to be energy. Where there’s energy, especially the kind you can get rich off of, the powers-that-be of the minions of this earth, won’t readily pass up a chance to earn a few bucks just by letting us all know that these visiting aliens come in peace. Hell no! First and foremost the powers-that-be will make sure that before we know about aliens the few and far between rich folk get their deserved crack at the money pot. I suppose it’s a good thing that we live in a period of earth history where aliens, even if they were able to make it here, would have the capacity to see through humanity’s measly existence and would then simply fly-by knowing/learning: they aren’t ready yet.

Which brings me to leaks and the colour red, as in: check out the map above. Two things stand out from the map.

It’s got a lot of red in it that indicates where most of the greed-mongers are that have been implicated in the Panama Papers leak. And:

The US ain’t red!

Of course, let’s not forget in these times of ever-more leaks and Orwellian governments that, although this one is a data-doozy–2.6TB to be exact–it is being released to us via news channels that we must trust as much as we trust Big Brother. Which makes worst-writer ask the following question: Why does there need to be an intermediary with these leaks? Why is it that some anonymous do-gooder in this world has to first contact a journalist and then that journalist has to scrutinise the info in the leak before releasing it? In this case, btw, hundreds of journalist were involved in scrutinising the leaks and all of them are connected to a journalist organisation in Washington DC. I really don’t get that. Isn’t there a way to get these leaks out to us raw?

As corrupt as Julian Assange may or may not be (held up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London), I’ve yet to be given any indication that the idea of simply releasing these leaks to the public via the Interwebnets is a bad idea. Is scrutiny by intermediaries needed to protect the innocent? Fuck the innocent! Perhaps Wikileaks isn’t even the best example of a system that could/should avoid an intermediary. Wasn’t that Wikileaks original intention? But then the website got so big, so popular, there are obviously so many anonymous leakers in the world. Wow.

Obviously Wikileaks also somehow scrutinises the information it gets. And I guess that’s ok. It’s just that, with the Panama Papers, not unlike the Snowden leak–which went through a guy who, because of the leak, was able to suddenly become his own news media organisation–the whole thing oozes worst-writer skepticism. Or are we worst-writing about conspiracy-theory here? Or didn’t you know that the CIA created Wikileaks? The NSA just pissed off Snowden by not giving him the corpo world (at such a young age) and he went rogue but the NSA knew the whole time that he was releasing information that contained no real data–just power-point presentations and new ideas for code words. And what about the idear that Russia’s oh-so-loved two-bit dictator, Putin, has been working all these years because of his love for mother Russia–and not to pocket a buck or three? Come on. Oh! Wait. Now they’ve even got a politician from Iceland by the balls. And what about that big-shot, billion dollar earning soccer player that’s been found out? Oh yeah. Money laundering, offshore accounts is new. Hashtag: how stupid do we have to be to fall for this krapp?

Look. I’m not trying to be downer about everything here. It’s just that things like this feel as though they are connected to something bigger, something like a puppeteer. And that puppeteer is obviously dancing around with the idear that money or taxation are noble endeavours? Just like Snowden’s leak, I can’t help but ask the question: are we really learning stuff here that couldn’t already be known if there was the will of knowledge and truth in our world? Oh. Forget it. What am I saying? Let’s wait for the aliens to come out of the goodness of their hearts.

As usual, dear worst-reader, worst-writer is shocked. (But I’m not surprised.) I’m shocked that #americants once again just don’t get it. I mean, come on. Do you really believe that Blackberry died such a tragic death because the Canadians are so bad at managing a corporation? Or could the whole demise of Blackberry have something to do with the fact that it lost its edge in security? Ok. Ok. I have absolutely nothing to substantiate a claim that Blackberry went under because it lost-out on the secure-phone game. But I can say this: the fact that Apple has to answer to the US government because it made products that are secure enough to prevent a multi-billion-dollar funded security apparatus from cracking customer passwords…. Yeah. ‘Nough said. With that in mind, let’s do a worst-writer run-down of what’s happened here so far.

Yet another horrific murder spree takes place in San Bernardino, CA, USA. This murder spree is different than any other murder spree because, well, it was committed by… (wait for it) “terrorists”.

One of the murderers possesses an iPhone, which, btw, was issued by his US employer.

After the murder spree and during the subsequent criminal investigation of it, it’s determined that the culprit shut off the auto back up settings of his US employer issued iPhone.

When the US authorities discovered that a few days of backups were missing they decided that they needed that information in order to further their investigation.

The US authorities, via court order, requested that Apple provide a means to crack the security settings of their iPhones. In other words, Apple has to rewrite its iPhone operating system so that US investigators can attempt to re-install the new operating system on the phone they want to crack. If that works, then US investigators will attempt to “brute force” cracking the iPhone and its user’s access password.

Brute-forcing a password means nothing more than being able to submit millions upon millions of password inputs on the phone. Preventing multiple inputs of passwords is the fundamental means of securing the device.

Ok. I’ll stop there. But if you get a chance to see the video I’ve linked to in this post (see above), heed this: the entire conversation about this issue is wrong. The fact that Apple’s security methodology is being discussed means nothing more than the US has failed after it has invested multiple trillions of taxpayer dollars into a system that was unable to do anything about… the Boston bombing, 9/11, London, Madrid, Paris…

Once again, #americant and the automatons that are part of its hugely expanded government protection apparatus have failed. But then again, failing upwards is winning. And so. While failing all one has to do is tap into the ingenuity of corporatist that don’t fail (as much) and all that taxpayer waste will be fine. Or maybe not. Good luck suckers. And…

Two worst-news issues this morn, dear worst-reader: gun control and privacy. What do these two issues have in common? Well, my guess is… Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Or? While reading through the hysteria that is the byproduct of madness on a scale never before seen, I couldn’t help but find some irony in these two stories. With that in mind. Let’s go there, shall we. § First. President Barry O asked the “media” to talk about America’s gun problem. Thankfully the media reacted. The graphs and charts are kinda mind-boggling. Of course the only thing I get out of them all is the WOW factor. Wow, I had no idear that so many people were killed by so many different methods. There’s car crashes. Doctor malpractice. Breast cancer. Suicide. And then there’s the best method of all: terrorism. Of course, it need not be mentioned that Barry O kinda opened the flood gates on that one. I mean, the US is spending trillions on fighting terrorists. In that fight we have so far slaughtered millions. How then can anyone expect the US to spend money on fighting the rampant gun deaths at home? It just doesn’t make any sense. Yet Obama’s recent call to “talk” about the gun problem might pay off. But to what end? Remember, dear worst-reader, it’s not so much the gun lobby (NRA) as much as it is years and years of conservative and batshit politicking that has brought the country to the brink. I mean. Come on. What is supposed to happen when a Democrat president calls for action on guns? I refer you to the supreme court case District of Columbia v. Heller. This case basically guarantees gun ownership under the 2nd Amendment—even though the amendment was written during times of muskets and includes “provisioner writ” regarding a well organised militia. The supreme court ruling also guarantees that you can own any gun you want–even really, really, really big and fast guns. So, again, what is supposed to happen when the president calls on the media to show a country of morons that…. shit happens? Oh yeah, we get to see graphs and charts and numbers. Of course, let there be no discourse regarding the demise of a country’s infrastructure—and I’m not referring to roads and bridges—where psychopaths, who obviously belong in psychiatric care, are instead faced with making pharmaceutical companies huge profits and then living in basements where it’s gun playtime. Obviously some form of gun control is on its way. But how that’s gonna happen with the current supreme court is a mystery to me. Keep in mind, the only supremes up for retirement are liberal ones. If people are serious about gun control then partaking in who nominates and approves of supremes should also be considered. It’ll be a long, arduous road, indeed. § Nomatter. § Let’s move on to European privacy, shall we. But before we do that, let’s set the mood. Say it thus: privasee. That’s how the British say it. Go ahead a repeat it a few times. Feels good coming off the tongue, don’t it? § What’s interesting about privasee and the recent EU ruling protecting it is how it relates to Edward Snowden. Without Snowden’s leaks the EU would have let all this slide, i.e. the moving and collection of private data from the EU to the US. Although I’m a skeptic regarding Snowden–that is, I just don’t think the info he released is very interesting because it’s more about the How and not the What regarding US spying–it seems as though the after-effect of what he’s done is starting to shine—at least in Europe. Europeans are really pissed off at the US about spying. It’s almost as though every frickin’ European has forgotten about the cold war (which spying helped to end) but still remembers the devastation of the great war (WWI+II) where they really learned how to spy on each other. Remember, Europe pretty much gave humanity industrialisation and with it the lust/need of espionage. Because Europe’s antiquated privasee laws are much stricter than in the US it’s only natural that Europeans react in this manner. Or? I suppose it doesn’t hurt matters very much that every European country has its own IP domain (e.g. .de, .es, .fr, .uk, etc.). Why doesn’t the US differentiate its states in this manner? Without using stealth proxies or any other IP trickery, digital content from Belgium or Spain can be easily traced but only within the parameters of EU law. I’m sure that plays a role whether or not US tech companies maintain EU data in the US. But in the end that doesn’t really matter because, well, the EU is just pissed off at the fact that US companies think they can horde everything and, when asked, turn it all over to the government. And that’s all fine and good. But it leads to a question. § “But, dear worst-writer, what does EU privasee law have to do with US gun law?” Well, like I alluded to above, probably nothing. On the other hand, I’ve been more interested in learning about Edward Snowden’s motivations more than anything else. I’m also curious as to why so little information is given to us about who these “mass shooters” really are–and who the hell is Edward Snowden? Is there information out there that someone or some entity doesn’t want to be public? Who are these people? Where do they really come from? What drugs are making them extra crazy? Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to cloud or discredit the issues here (privacy and gun control). But I do recall an interview with Snowden’s father that revealed an atypical mindset of these times, that of a government hating, gun totting, Amurikan. Yes. Indeed. The riff-raff wannabes are all having their time in the limelight. Some of them murder, other’s find refuge in Russia. Either way, the place many others call home continues to spiral into a frenzy of madness. § Good luck suckers. Rant on. -tommi

No. Seriously. Here’s a question for ya, which is also kinda paraphrasing (the fabulous) Ronda Rousey: In an all-out, open fight, I bet Hillary Clinton would kick Edward Snowdens ass.

Well, dear worst-reader, there you have it. The big Ed, the Snow(ball)den, has come out to tell us–us measly muggle-born non-techies–that what Hillary did with her private email server was dangerous. Really? But hold on a sec. Before I get to the tech/server krapp allow me this brief aside. How, for the love of integrity, does this guy live with himself? An American living in criminal exile in Russia, a country that is basically ruled by a two-bit dictator, and the audience who he is trying to appeal to is supposed to listen to him? What? Oh. I’m wrong? You say he’s in political exile? Oh. You mean in Russia? Ok. Whatever. Still. I do not know… but am somehow curious as to how he does it. And not only how he lives with himself but what’s with those glasses? Is it me or is a nose pad missing from those glasses? (Go ‘head, google nose pad and snowden.) I mean. That’s weird. Is this guy kinda weird? Nomatter.

Opportunity abounds in this world, dear worst-reader. And if you want to get ahead in it, you’d better find your opportunity. (Btw, in #americant, opportunity is a commodity so make sure you can afford it!) I mean, we all must take what we can get, eh. Kentucky marriage licensers do it. Former military generals of Empire do it. Heck, we now have the first candidate in our history running for president who is at the same time under federal indictment. This is America, baby–even though Mr. Snowden can’t live in it. And. If the third world won’t come up to our level, than we’ll damn sure go down to theirs. The banana republic of #americant! And you can also be sure of this: while becoming a 3rd world country, at least America’s trim will be in gold–not unlike the trim The Donald has on his tacky aircraft, tacky cars, tacky penis and wife’s… tacky personality. (Hey, bet you thought I was gonna worst-write somethin’ else there, eh.) But all worst-kidding aside.

Let’s get one thing straight when it comes to this email scandal, Hillary and a criminal locked in Russia who thinks it (i.e. Hillary) is dangerous. First. A brief history lesson. What would you have done if you found out that your husband’s womanising could be proven because of not just a stain on a blue dress but also because of illegally tapped phone line that was given to a biased, sexually repressed, (non)independent (grand jury) counsel? Would you be suspicious about using email–which is essentially no different than making a phone call? Would you do what you could do to protect your phone call, I mean emails–within the boundaries of the law? Btw. There is a way to make email secure. It’s not that hard. But that entails a slightly higher level of tech know-how. I could secure my emails if I wanted to. And there was never chance in hell that I could get a job at the state department. But then again, I did work for the same company Snowden worked for. Hey! Stop that! This ain’t about me.

Here a few questions you might consider while swimming around in the boiling anger you feel for Hillary–because you’ve fallen for the villainization of “liberals” since Limbaugh & Co. got into your head. And be careful. Some of this stuff requires cognition.

What server did she use?

What hardware did her server run on?

Who had administrative privileges to that server?

Who had her email address?

How did she distribute that email address?

In voluntarily turning it over to federal authorities, if it was encrypted, did she decrypt it before turning it over or did she give the authorities her encryption keys?

My point of these question is that we don’t know anything about what Hillary actually did with her emails or her server. Knowing that stuff should be part of judging whether she is/was a danger, or? Well, I guess it shouldn’t if you’re simply boiling over with hate. Instead all we have is a government agency (Justice Dept. and FBI?) combing through all her emails and then releasing certain amounts of them periodically. That said. Here is what we do know when it comes to national security breaches. As mentioned above, a major military general was prosecuted for illegally providing his lover with classified information. We also know that the US government was recently hacked and thousands upon thousands of personal, government employee information (including information of people who were only applying for work) was made public. This scandal alone proves that the US government is spending too much on guns and not enough on technology. In fact, the government cannot know how many emails are floating around with government information. So the last question is, if you don’t trust Hillary (because you hate her so much), what has she actually done wrong? She most certainly hasn’t broken any laws.

What bothers me about this so-called scandal is that it stinks of the same tactics used by the sexually repressed republicans to bring down Bill Clinton in the 90s. And here’s a prediction for you: if Hillary does get elected, there’ll be another sexually repressed republican appointed as general counsel to investigate whether or not she lies about a personal transgression that has nothing to do with running the greatest failed-upward nation-state experiment in human history. I hope she’s more teflon than Bill.

And one last thought. I’m still waiting for the Snowden leaks, that are conveniently being distributed piece by piece by a profiteering entity, to show me the what and not the how of government spying on its citizenry. Which means that there is something disingenuous about Snowden appearing along side Daniel Ellsberg. You see, Ellsberg, when he released secret documents to the public, revealed what our government was doing that was illegal during the Vietnam war. But I digress.